Of course not. And that’s the slow lane– in the UK.

If the Jag X was a Camry/Accord competitor and priced in line with those two vehicles, I believe that it would offer a good value with a bit of style thown in. But the reality is that the Jag X was priced more in line with cars like the Lexus ES 330 and the BMW 3 series. At that price point, the style of the car isn’t enough to make the price worth while. If however, the Jag X offered the driving dynamics of the 3 series BMW, I feel that the looks of the car would’ve given it an advantage over it even at the same price.

I’ve always liked the looks of the Jag X. It stands out in a sea of CamCords and Bangle back Bimmers.

What I’ve always felt the problem was is that the car was way overpriced for what it delivered. As has been mentioned already, other cheaper cars offer more than the Jag X.

Your 2 point contradict each other. In the first paragraph, you want something unique and not a sea of XXX. In the second paragraph, you want some good value.

As a matter of fact, there are a sea of Camry/Accord or even 330’s simply because they provide the best value in their class. The logic is simple: everyone buys great values —> cars of great value sells a lot —> there will be a sea of this car model.

Even wondered why so many pistol-heads bash Toyota and praise VW?

Why not just make S/SL-class fighter with Jaguar, TSX/TL fighter with Volvo and C/E-class fighter with Lincoln?

What I’ve always felt the problem was is that the car was way overpriced for what it delivered. As has been mentioned already, other cheaper cars offer more than the Jag X.

But with their dismal resale value, they make a better deal than many new small sedans.

Cadillac BLS or….SAAB 9-3

And, Ingvar, as a BMW 3-series owner and a corporate president, it is possible that I am unique in my enjoyment of a small, quick and maneuverable car which can still in a pinch carry four people, but I don’t think so. I don’t aspire to either the 5- or 7-series, but then again I did not buy the car for image, but for the simple fact that it does virtually everything I need in a package which offers a modicum of daily-drive luxury but will as well tear around a race track on the odd weekend. 5’s and 7’s are simply too large for my taste; it’s bad enough that my new 3′er is north of 3600 pounds, unladen.

It is a:

1. Front wheel drive
2. Diesel
3. Station Wagon.

And it simply isn’t stylish enough. On top on that, the car tries to be too much, when it’s neither fish nor fowl. It’s neither sportish or stylish, and it simply lacks the Jaguar-DNA grace and pace. It looks like a Jaguar designed and manufactured by koreans.

BMW has positioned itself as the car for choice in the ciorporate segment. The 3-series is intenden for the up-and-coming young executive, the 5-series for middle management, and the 7-series for the senior executives and chairmen of the board. The guy in the 3-series wants to achieve the goals of the men in the 5- and 7-series.

The fundamental problem with the X-Type is that it actually isn’t a young peoples car, In Europe it is an old peoples car. Instead of young and ambitious 30-somethings, the demographic for the X-type reads more like retired middle class who chooses the cheapest Jag instead of the most expensive Ford, Opel or Volkswagen. It is the equivalent of a Buick or Mercury. At the end of the day, all it is is a tarted-up Ford Mondeo. And it shows.

I don’t think there is necessarily a problem with a Jag wagon, just call it a “shooting brake”, put it in a photo with a chap in green wellies shooting pheasant and the Yanks will lap it up. (probably)

Dean is right.

Ford may have saved Jaguar from death, but small estate wagons are a fate worse than death for a marque such as Jaguar.

Sir William Lyons built cars with soul, and to a price. He was the man that built the XK 120 and the E-type, and the Mark 2 and the XJ.

Now we have tarted up Fords for outrageous prices.

Honestly, Jaguar would be better off dead. –chuck

The heck with comparing this car against a A4 Avant… What about a Subaru Legacy GT wagon for thousands less?

Faux carbon fibre belongs in a tarted up Focus, not a Jag. Whomever decided to market a FWD diesel Jag should be shot.

Maserati is the new Jaguar. Jaguar is the new Lincoln. Lincoln is the new Mercury. Mercury is the new Oldsmobile.

I can’t believe they are actually still building variants of this car, based on the circa 2000 Mondeo while a much better and newer Mondeo hits the streets.

Younger buyers ( who tend to buy these sort of cars ) normally want some vestige of “sportiness” in whatever they purchase. As they get older, they become progressively more into “comfort”. Where the big German marques succeed is in pitching their entry models as “sporty” and then, as they get larger ( 5 series then 7 series ) they get more “comfortable” in their appeal ( while still trying to retain some sportiness – no one likes to feel old )

Where Jaguar failed initially with the execution of the X-type was not in using the Mondeo chassis ( which is actually very good ) but in trying too much to ape the XJ which is targetted at too old a market.

Their attempts to rectify the situation with various Sport models have failed, as the model’s identity is now too entrenched in people’s minds as “an old man’s car”. 5 years ago I bought, on a whim, an XKR and was amazed at how my friends mocked me for being an Old Aged Pensioner at the time ( despite being 35 )

Jag need to re-establish the “sportiness” heritage of the brand ( E-types, Le Mans etc ) – the F type would have been perfect. The Gorgeous ad campaign that they are currently running misses the mark by miles….

Whether or not to launch such a small car led to “an intense debate,” recalls Juergen Hubbert, the former boss of the Teutonic brand, and a man known to many as “Dr. Mercedes.” Back in the early 1980s, the definition of a luxury car was rigid and narrowly defined, perhaps best personified by the likes of the big Benz S-Class and slightly smaller E-Class. A compact? Verboten, argued the traditionalists. But in the wake of the second Mideast oil crisis, consumers were clamoring for something smaller and more fuel-efficient, and the radicals won.

It’s easy to understand why there were so many folks inside Mercedes worried about the baby Benz. It was more than just a downsized S-Class – or perhaps less, if you prefer. On the most basic 190 models, there were cloth seats with mechanical adjusters and none of the electronic and mechanical niceties you normally associate with a Mercedes. Wood and leather yielded to inexpensive plastic. The exterior design was clunky and awkward, and the interior layout was unpleasantly inefficient, with virtually no leg room for back seat passengers.

Yet despite its drawbacks, the baby Benz proved an immediate hit with consumers around the world. It quickly demonstrated that size alone is not the measure of a luxury car. And at Mercedes, that led to a dramatic change in strategy. Back in the early ’80s, you could count the marque’s various models on one hand. Today, you’ll run short of fingers and toes, with a range that includes the classic S- and E-; the 190’s descendant, the C-Class; the SL, SLK and SLR; the CL and CLK; and, well, the list just keeps going.
”
Full article at TCC.

It hurt deeply. But what’s worse is the idea that there is a Jaguar stationwagon in the world. Will someone tell me what kind of a world we live in?

It’s a world where Opels where Cadillac badges and sport four cylinder diesels! DIESELS!!!!

It’s all too much….I…I don’t know if I can go on…I… I may buy a HONDA!

To which I respond: would anyone really care, given what they offer? Does ANYONE lust after a Jag? (That could certainly change if they put the C-XF into production.)

For my money, I would much rather have an A4 Avant. I love that car.